“It is nationalism which endangers nations, and not the other way round.” –Ernest André Gellner (British-Czech philosopher and social anthropologist)

French President Francois Hollande recently issued a statement that his country is prepared to open its borders and welcome 24,000 migrants seeking asylum over the next two years. This statement, issued on September 7, 2015, is part of a new plan designed by the European Union to accept and appropriately distribute the massive exodus of refugees fleeing from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other surrounding nations. When asked to comment on French polls that indicated 55% of the national population was opposed to accepting more refugees, Hollande responded that asylum is a constitutional right and a moral duty, and that “France’s image and standing in the world were at stake.”

In light of the recent terrorists attacks on Paris, and amid reports that one of the attackers held a Syrian passport, Hollande has emphasized the necessity of making proper background checks prior to accepting these refugees. Hollande has declared war on ISIS, but made it clear that France will maintain its “humanitarian duty” and promise to welcome refugees over the next two years.

While many refugees initially identified Germany as the most ideal place to relocate with supposed security and job opportunities abound, other European countries are now offering comparable conditions and welcoming the migrants. In fact, because Germany has been accommodating such a massive influx of individuals in recent months, France has offered to help by offering an expedited asylum application to migrant families arriving in Munich: temporary housing in France along with a two-week approval process as opposed to the usual six-month process.

These recent political and cultural strides made by France are particularly notable given the nation’s sticky history with immigration and ethnic tension. Having just spent a month living and learning in France, I can attest that it is challenging to go more than a day without hearing an allegation that the presence of ethnic minorities, foreigners, and immigrants creates a grave problem for the nation. A commonly held belief among French traditionalists is that these groups directly threaten and compromise the very essence of true “Frenchness.” Many harbor a sense of nationalism that transcends the concept of national pride and actually results in extreme and egregious discrimination—for example, some believe that to be truly “French” is to be white, Catholic, and multi-generationally French. This statement parades as protectionism when in reality it is rooted in racism. This has created an ongoing and very heated dialogue surrounding immigration policy in the last century.

This French perception of nationalism (hopefully) seems foreign to us in the United States. Our nationality law is based on the principles of jus soli (Latin for “right of soil”), meaning that individuals gain immediate citizenship upon being born in the U.S. This has subsequently created the notion that America is a mixing pot of racial identities—our sense of national pride comes from being united as American, not from being one united race. In contrast, most states in Europe, Asia, and Oceania grant citizenship based on principles of jus sanguinis (Latin for “right of blood”) or a restricted version of jus solis—as is the case in France. Under this philosophy, individuals become citizens depending on their parents’ citizenship and not by birthplace. This has fostered and accentuated the cultural division in France between natives and immigrants which has resulted in the emergence of a perceived social hierarchy. Because of this heated history and conflicting cultural dynamic, President Hollande’s decision to welcome refugees in spite of opposition (and in spite of recent events) deserves recognition.

France’s situation forcibly evokes a particularly challenging set of questions: at what point should international leaders place a greater emphasis on obligations to humanity than on obligations to their own national interests? How do leaders of the Western community in particular negotiate or reconcile national interests with moral duty? Is there such a thing as a moral duty to the international community? According to the UNHCR: “Since, by definition, refugees are not protected by their own governments, the international community steps in to ensure they are safe and protected.” In fact, in the past few decades 142 nations have signed on to both the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 protocol. By signing this international treaty and its 1967 amendment, the UNHCR states nations are essentially agreeing that “refugees deserve, as a minimum, the same standards of treatment enjoyed by other foreign nationals in a given country and, in many cases, the same treatment as nationals.”

While we have historically seen that most national actions, even humanitarian ones, are often out of self-interest, it is my sincere hope that international authorities will continue to improve and open their borders to those in need. Afterall, those of us born in Western nations with relatively safe conditions could have just as easily been born into a nation experiencing a crisis. Wouldn’t we then hope and pray for assistance and asylum in the E.U.? In the U.S.?

This debate reminded me of an excerpt from Shakespeare’s play “Sir Thomas More.” Sir Thomas More is a lawyer, sent to address an angry crowd of individuals rioting to get rid of “those immigrants” or “strangers.” Shakespeare delivers a powerful message that transcends time and place when More challenges the natives to consider what they would do if they had to flee their home country:

“Whether would you go?

What country, by the nature of your error,

Should give you harbor? go you to France or Flanders,

To any German province, to Spain or Portugal,

Nay, any where that not adheres to England,–

Why, you must needs be strangers: would you be pleased

To find a nation of such barbarous temper,

That, breaking out in hideous violence,

Would not afford you an abode on earth,

Whet their detested knives against your throats,

Spurn you like dogs, and like as if that God

Owed not nor made not you, nor that the elements

Were not all appropriate to your comforts,

But chartered unto them, what would you think

To be thus used? this is the strangers case;

And this your mountanish inhumanity.”

(Sir Thomas More, Act II, Scene IV)

This is the stranger’s case—the immigrant’s case. For many, it’s near impossible to fully comprehend the plight and experiences of today’s refugees, but so important to try. While it’s challenging to reconcile national interests with humanitarian needs, our nationality shouldn’t supersede our humanity.

Nationality vs. Humanity: The Stranger’s Case was last modified: November 20th, 2015 by Madison Weil

Since November of last year, mounting tensions within Ukraine have made divisions between Russia, the European Union (EU), and the United States (US) increasingly evident. In an effort to establish stronger trade relations with Western Europe, Ukraine’s then-President Viktor Yanukovych initially sought to broker a deal in which his country would join the EU. However, come decision time and ongoing pressure from Moscow, Yanukovych backed out of the EU deal in favor of strengthening economic and political ties with his country’s border neighbor Russia, resulting in the rapid escalation of tensions between pro-Western Ukrainians and eastern pro-Russian Ukrainians. Consequently, pro-Western Ukrainians voiced their frustrations and ousted Yanukovych, while pro-Russian Ukrainians retaliated by seizing government buildings and showing their support for Russian military assistance.

Despite the existence of East versus West divisions within Ukraine prior to the controversy surrounding the failed EU deal, following the tense situation in November, countries both near and far have sought to make their stance known in an effort to fulfill personal political and/or economic goals. For example, frustrated with the country’s former president’s decision to vacate from an EU agreement, the EU quickly reacted to Ukraine’s political instability by approving the provision of 1 billion euros of economic assistance to the new pro-Western Ukrainian government. Additionally, the EU issued tariff cuts to the country in order to make exporting goods to the EU cheaper and to reiterate why an economic partnership with the EU is worth pursuing.

Furthermore, the United States, who just so happens to be a strong ally of the EU, has voiced its disapproval of pro-Russian Ukrainian factions by demanding the end of Russian participation and by the apparent orchestration of eastern Ukraine’s ongoing separatist violence. It has even gone so far as to continuously label Russia’s presence in the region as a carefully planned, “full-scale invasions,” causing a stark division between the US and Russia reminiscent of the Cold War. However bold, this language appears to be appropriate. After Russia’s occupation and annexation of Ukraine’s Black Sea peninsula of Crimea and its continued presence on the country’s eastern border, it is hardly surprising that a global power like the United States would distrust Russian actions and intentions. It is in the US’s political and economic interest, therefore, to protect Ukraine’s sovereignty and promote Ukraine becoming a member of the EU.

Russia, however, views the situation differently. Because Ukraine and Georgia are the only territories separating Russia from NATO member-states (with the exception of the Russian port city of Kaliningrad), allowing Ukraine to join the EU and potentially join NATO is a scenario Russia cannot entertain. After all, NATO’s creation and ongoing expansion were centered around containing the Soviet Union politically and militarily. Understandably, Russia sees proximity to NATO as a direct threat to its national security, and therefore refuses to let Ukraine stray without a fight. That said, supporting a separatist movement is also not in Russia’s interest, for it will still lessen the physical divide between NATO members and Russia as a result of the incorporation of part of Ukraine into its borders, resulting in the expansion of Russia’s borders and the partial dissolving of its buffer from NATO. Russia, therefore, is walking a fine line; it must support pro-Russian Ukrainian factions without encouraging them to split away from Ukraine in order to create a new, united, pro-Russia Ukraine that Russia can depend on in its quest to maintain political security and distance from NATO.

Until tensions are quelled within Ukraine and so long as Ukraine remains a global political, security, and economic interest, hostilities between the West and East will remain especially high. For such a small country, playing up its strategic value is the primary source of power it possesses. Consequently, maintaining ties with all parties best serves the country’s interests, and will likely mean a decision about whether or not to join the EU will be prolonged as long as the West permits. Only time will tell what Ukraine will do and which region will succeed most at wooing the fragile state.

Crisis in Ukraine and the Global Scramble for Ukrainian Allegiance was last modified: May 5th, 2014 by Christine Smith

Twelve years ago in the Netherlands, the first same-sex couples walked down the aisle to consummate their marriages. Since 2001, almost twelve other countries have followed suit by passing national laws allowing same-sex marriage and domestic partnerships, including Spain, Canada, South Africa, Portugal, Iceland (where no members of the legislature voted against it), and Argentina.

Meanwhile, a 2011 report by the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association found that same-sex relationships are still criminalized in 76 countries—five of those countries reserve the death penalty as punishment for homosexuality (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Mauritania and Sudan). While some parts of the world progress marriage equality, others fall deeper into traditionalism, theocratic justifications, and violence as a backlash to Western progress for the rights of women and gays.

Last month, the Russian parliament approved a draft law banning the dissemination of “homosexual propaganda” to minors. The legislation, strongly backed by the Russian Orthodox Church, would forbid public events endorsing homosexual rights, block websites deemed inappropriate for youth, and charge fines up to $16,000 for any public demonstrations of “homosexual propaganda.” The draft will go to Russian President Vladimir Putin (who is in support of the ban) after two more readings, but hope for anything but the implementation of this ban seems futile in light of the 388-1 vote in favor of the law. “We live in Russia, not Sodom and Gomorrah,” United Russia Deputy Dmitry Sablin commented before the Russian parliament passed the bill. Despite the overwhelming intolerance, gay activists still staged a “kiss-in” protest outside the chamber, which ended with the detention of 20 activists.

Since his return to the presidency, Putin has made a series of strategic political moves to stifle dissent and consolidate power through oppressive authoritarian tactics. His rhetoric constantly reflects on a return to conservative Russian traditionalism: “God, Tsar, and Country.”, Putin has tactically strengthened his ties to the Russian Orthodox Church, hoping the support of one of Russia’s most influential institutions will fortify his political power. Hence, the backwards legislation first and foremost serves to establish an anti-Western liberalism while unsubtly signaling a shift towards an Orthodox Russia. More importantly, at the core of Putin’s call for a more traditional Russia lies a far more dangerous vision for homogenization. “We either become a tolerant Western state where everything is allowed—and lose our Christianity and moral foundations—or we will be a Christian people who live in our God-protected land in purity and godliness,” said Reverend Sergiy Rybko, a priest in the Orthodox Church. In partnering with the Russian Orthodox Church, Putin allies with the Church’s religious positions on Russia’s domestic policies. Putin’s plans echo the Reverend’s visions, which begin by politically ostracizing gays as a tabooed immoral minority. But homosexuals are not the only minorities in Russia—next come the Jews, the Central Asian Muslims, the atheists etc., until the Orthodox Russian leadership use “traditional values” as a warrant to politically and socially exclude every non-“Russian” minority.

In protest of the ban, a Russian television host disclosed his homosexuality on the air and was subsequently fired from the channel he had co-founded. Reported beatings of gay men have boomed. Same-sex European couples will be banned from adopting Russian orphans. The real-word impact of Russia’s ban on “homosexual propaganda” transcends an innocent plea for traditional values: homophobic legislation under the false guise of morality sends a dangerous message to the Russian public, who as it is are not the most emphatic towards gay citizens. According to Levada Center’s opinion polls last year, almost two-thirds of Russians find homosexuality “morally unacceptable and worth condemning. About half opposed gay rallies and same-sex marriage, while almost a third thought homosexuality was the result of ‘a sickness or a psychological trauma.’”

In light of the strong prejudices against homosexuals, Putin’s recent escalation of security forces on opposition—jailing and harassing gay activists—sets a critically dangerous example for the nation. Russian leadership’s treatment of a socially vulnerable population tells society that crimes against gays are not considered crimes; that violence against and oppression of some citizens are warranted; and that hate crimes are to be equated with patriotism. Gays in Russia already face tremendous intolerance and the state-sanctioning of homophobia will only serve to escalate violence against innocent Russian citizens, as witnessed by the recent escalation of gay beatings.

The European Union’s foreign policy chief Catherin Ashton expressed concern with the ban, stating, “The implementation of this law could reinforce discrimination against lesbians, gays, bisexuals […] as well as all those who support them and their choices, in particular by limiting their freedom of expression and their freedom of association and assembly.” European cities, including Venice and Milan, have also taken action against the bill by canceling their sister-city status with St. Petersburg.

While Russia’s president dismembers any real opposition in an effort to re-direct his country towards medieval times, other countries are facing a more legitimate debate on the issue of same-sex marriage.

On Tuesday, February 8, the British House of Commons voted overwhelmingly in favor of a bill legalizing same-sex marriage in Britain (the bill is essentially assured passage through its next legislative stages). Unlike Russia, the bill resulted in a six-hour debate, which ultimately ended with a 400-175 vote in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage. Despite this victory, however, more than half of the Conservative Party’s legislators voted against the bill (or abstained). Right-wing Parliament member Edward Leigh stated, “We should be in the business of protecting cherished institutions and our cultural heritage.”

Sadly, lawmakers like Leigh do not realize the fundamental duty bestowed upon them: to protect people, not institutions, to protect human rights, not a subjective sense of cultural heritage. Lawmakers should be in the business of providing a secure political and social environment for each and every citizen without the fear of exclusion or victimization—despite whom they choose to love.

Even further divided than Britain, France also recently introduced a similar measure on same-sex marriage, backed by President Francois Hollande. On February 12, the French National Assembly passed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage (the bill still needs to pass through the French Senate and be signed by President Hollande, but it is predicted to become law as soon as May 2013). Despite the measure’s overwhelming projected victory in the Senate (or perhaps in spite of), the legislation has triggered recent demonstrations in Paris with tens of thousands protestors taking to the streets to protect traditional definitions of marriage. The French Parliament has been equally heated, with an extended debate on same-sex marriage now in its second week. The bill has drawn angry insults across the National Assembly floor and has undergone more than 5,300 amendments. Similar to Russia, the Insee poll in 2012 indicates that French citizens “do not overwhelmingly embrace legalizing same-sex marriage (70%), with many French citizens joining with the church, as well as some secular conservative groups, in expressing their strong opposition.” As recently as January, a crowd of roughly 500,000 French protestors demonstrated outside the Eiffel Tower in Paris in opposition to same-sex marriage. As both a secular republic defending individual rights and a largely religious Catholic nation with deeply-rooted (and outdated) notions of family structure, France’s debate on same-sex marriage reflects a far deeper paradox in French civil society.

While French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault explained that “contrary to what those who vociferate against [the bill] say — fortunately they’re in the minority — this law is going to strengthen the institution of marriage,” mass protests continued. As a democratic country, the passage of the same-sex marriage law will extenuate the divide between conservative and progressive members of French Parliament (as it has done in Britain) rather than resulting in a major political crisis. Ultimately, further polarization will more likely be neutralized with younger more progressive political leadership, as opposed to political consolidation through a democratic process.

As the world slowly turns towards the acceptance of same-sex marriage, some countries struggle more than others to adopt progressive policies. While Russian leadership and the Orthodox Church strategically condemn Western influences of marriage equality, France slowly finds its way towards legalizing same-sex marriage, despite strong political opposition and polarization. On a more unanimous path, Britain forges forward in the battle for equality, symbolizing the growing influence of a global social revolution that began over a decade ago. The actions of two of the world’s most influential countries set a brave example for the rest of the indecisive world: despite staunch and sometimes offensive opposition, the essential obligation of national legislators is the protection of their people, not their institutions.

Facts and figures from Reuters, The New York Times, CNN,and The Pew Forum.

Shadee Ashtari is a senior at UCLA majoring in Communications with a minor in Political Science. At the Burkle Center, Shadee is the Editor-in-Chief of The Generation. Her current research focuses on student homelessness in the U.S. and the rise and decline of religiosity in industrialized nations.

Gay Marriage in Britain, France, and Russia: Two Steps Forward, One Step Back was last modified: February 26th, 2013 by thegeneration

Despite the anti-austerity protests from thousands of unemployed Spaniards in recent months, Spain is moving towards cutting social programs in its most severe austerity budget plan in history in order to receive bailouts for its banks and government debt. Spain is considering to apply for the Enhanced Conditions Credit Line (ECCL), a euro-zone bailout fund that would grant money to Spain’s government with the condition that it imposes more fiscal austerity. More than $50 billion worth of budget cuts in education, healthcare, welfare, and pensions are expected and unemployment benefits and civil servant wages have already frozen.

However, as long as the labor market in Spain remains uncompetitive, Spain has little hope in recovering from its economic crisis in the long term. Restoration of the labor market, rather than its banks and bond market, is what will ultimately bring Spain out of its suffering. With nearly a 25% unemployment rate, Spain is making a serious mistake in cutting the social programs that are the lifeline of thousands of unemployed people. Moreover, borrowing money from the rest of the world to grant these bailouts to banks does not consider the future of its youth in the job market. According to the Wall Street Journal, “workers ages 16 to 24 face an astronomical 53.3% unemployment rate and for 25- to 34-year-olds, the rate is 27%.”

UCLA Economics Professor Aaron Tornell explains that high unemployment in Spain’s youth is due to a situation of “insiders” and “outsiders.”

“An insider is someone who is ensured a job for life; many insiders are union members,” said Dr. Tornell. “An outsider, particularly a young person, is someone who will not have a job regardless of whether the person is educated or not. The power of unions is protecting the insiders from getting fired. In order to fix unemployment, you have to weaken the power of the unions to make sure companies can hire younger, more productive people.”

Another problem that the Spanish youth faces stems from the housing bubble that burst in 2008. When Spain joined the euro in 1999, low interest rates brought banks to lend an unprecedented number of property loans and the boom years of this period caused wages to rise quickly within the labor market. As a result, Spain has been exporting less of its own, more expensive goods and importing more of cheaper products from its European counterparts. This trend resulted in Spain’s government overspending, but more importantly, Spain’s labor market became highly uncompetitive.

In the long term, giving salvation only to banks with bailouts all the while punishing the Spanish people through austerity measures serves in no interest of the Spanish people, government, or even banks. Nobel Peace Prize Laureate in Economics, Paul Krugman wrote in a New York Timesop-ed article that fiscal austerity in Spain’s current economic state is simply, “just insane.”

“Europe has had several years of experience with harsh austerity programs, and the results are exactly what students of history told you would happen: such programs push depressed economies even deeper into depression,” said Mr. Krugman. “And because investors look at the state of a nation’s economy when assessing its ability to repay debt, austerity programs haven’t even worked as a way to reduce borrowing costs.”

However, the general trend throughout the world, not just in Spain, has been that bailing out banks has preceded the need to support social programs. The banking system has become monopolized so that banks are too large to fail when they are in trouble. Smaller banks around the world have merged together into larger banks in order to increase their assets to a point where defaults in these banks can risk a financial collapse. In addition, the risk of having these banks default could lead to a greater catastrophe of foreign investors pulling out their money from banks and government bonds. No investments cause reserves of banks to shrink, which would in turn increase interest rates and stiffen lending to consumers. Therefore, the banking system has become so essential to capital of the economy that bailouts have become the insurance banks can rely on when their loans are in trouble.

As a prime example, Spain’s government is applying for an ECCL to bring foreign investors, or at least keep the ones it already has, and maintain its credibility to repay debt. Moreover, if there are no foreign investors, there is a risk that Spain will default on its loans to France and Germany, which can spread Spain’s economic crisis into an epidemic throughout Europe. Consequently, further downgrades of Spain’s bonds—which are currently one notch above junk status according to Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s—will not only drive foreign investors further away from its bond market, but also bring other European Union countries down with it.

For these reasons, although banks are responsible for the housing bubble, they will receive the aid that they need even though austerity measures will make taxpayers’ lives harder. Since big banks are nearly guaranteed bailouts, there are no incentives to prevent banks from issuing out risky loans when the economy recovers and interest rates are low again. But for how long can this vicious cycle last? Already there are violent protests of hundreds of thousands all around the world. If governments wish to ensure the future of its citizens, the cries of the poor, young, and unemployed must be heard.

A strong, competitive labor market is what will bring revenue and ultimately restore the economy. Spain can start with not cutting social programs that are the support systems for the thousands of unemployed and struggling citizens. Secondly, laws must be set in place to prevent unions from not hiring the unemployed youth in Spain. Thirdly, although bailouts must be administered, social programs should take priority before banks are given aid. Finally, there must be laws or a set of incentives that will prevent banks from giving out such toxic loans that start such housing bubbles and financial crises. The people of Spain have been hurting long enough and it is time the government supports and invests in the people who can restore the economy for what it once was.

Tina Kim is a second year Communications major and Public Policy and Urban Planning double minor. She is a co-editor and writer for The Generation.

Spain’s Labor Markets: The Disregarded Solution of Economic Recovery was last modified: October 23rd, 2012 by thegeneration